The New York Times: Has an interesting Op - Ed piece, the article states the following on the future of military operations in Afghanistan, " need to continue our presence with a lighter military footprint, limited to training the Afghan forces.............and ensuring that Al Qaeda does not regroup. " The question is this enough, will this work in the long term, the Obama Administration is under pressure from the Liberal Left to get out of Afghanistan, this option might look good in political terms for a short time, but long term, it could fail. Al Qaeda would know that Obama is weak and does not want to win Afghanistan, they would then mount more attacks, think Tet; Major 1968 Viet Cong Attacks on Saigon and other major cities in South Vietnam; attacks weekly, how would Obama cope with hundred of body bags coming back from Afghanistan. Thus if the US military want forty five thousand more troops he should sent them, give them a year to turn Afghanistan around, if it does not work, then close down the Afghan part of the operation, move the bases and troops to Pakistan, take down the Taliban and Al Qaeda in the badlands of the border between Afghanistan and Pakistan, mount special forces and drone attacks in Afghanistan and Pakistan, on the civic side build up the social, economic structure of the badlands area, thus build roads, schools for both genders, hospitals, give some hope to the people, thus win hearts and minds. Lets face there are not great options when it comes to Afghanistan.
No comments:
Post a Comment